POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[Motown Bombers]

32 minutes ago, chasfh said:

When Kamala went on The View and said that she wouldn't have done anything different from President Joe Biden. She got caught flat-footed and didn't have a answer to it. To many people, it made her look unprepared.

Kamala was criticized when she was asked about the U.S. relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when she gave a lengthy, somewhat circuitous answer that critics labeled "word salad". This was also the interview Trump sued over, and although that's not her fault, it did get hung on her.

When she cracked a beer with Colbert on his show, it was criticized as "forced" and "unpresidential". 

During a rally with Oprah Winfrey, Kamala was asked a direct question about her plan to lower the cost of living. Her response was a two-minute monologue about "what is possible" and "commonality" which was widely ridiculed online for failing to provide a concrete policy answer.

Taken separately, maybe not all of these would draw so much attention, but they start compounding on one another and may have hurt her vote totals.

You may think none of these are flubs, which is your prerogative, but she did get criticized for all these. Not to put too fine a point on it, most would agree that these are the kinds of things a white male candidate can get away with more than a female candidate of color.

And, of course, the Charli XCX Brat thing didn't help, either.

Biden was the most progressive president since Johnson and had the best post COVID economy in the world. Why would she do anything different? Trump just bellowed tariffs which would increase prices and never received the same scrutiny. Harris at least had plans to build more housing, offer down payment assistance, and expand Medicaid. 

[Motown Bombers]

7 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I don't agree with everything Hasan Piker has said. But spare me the outrage. Where was your outrage when Kamala wanted her name and reputation associated with someone who was a war criminal and should have died in the Hauge in Richard Cheney? I certainly didn't like her accepting Cheney's endorsement and no Democrat should feel comfortable with it. Harris said she was honored to have the endorsement of a person who authorized the use of torture on human beings and committed war crimes.

Building the case for war off lies, going into war for no-bid oil contracts, slaughtering civilians in Iraq, and using chemical weapons in Iraq when the Bush Administration allowed white phosphorus bombs to be dropped on people is all far worse than anything Piker said. So spare me please.

**** Cheney didn’t campaign with Harris. 

[ewsieg]

One you missed was Rogan.  And not the decision not to go on, but whoever thought it would be good to lie about the reasons.  The campaign could have simply stated that scheduling didn't work. Texas wasn't a swing state hence Kamala didn't need to spend money visiting it.  Instead they wanted it entirely on their terms and when they couldn't get that, they blamed Rogan.  So they not only didn't court the base that Rogan's show has, they alienated it.

Kind of related, Arsenio Hall was just on Rogan and I listened to them talk about Clinton being on and how they offered an interview with Bush as well, but Bush declined as it was 'unbecoming of the presidency'.   You could argue Clinton won in large part to what his appearance on that show meant to his campaign.  In seeing Hillary in interviews now, I think she could have came across very well on Howard Stern, who knows what that could have done.  Just not sure if Kamala has the charisma to make it happen, but wish she would have tried.

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

**** Cheney didn’t campaign with Harris. 

Cheney endorsed Harris, as did his daughter. His daughter, while of course not directly responsible for his war crimes, campaigned with her. Harris embraced Cheney's endorsement and said she was honored to have it. By accepting the endorsement you are allowing it to be one more step in the process to rehabilitating the image of a war criminal. No, she didn't go out on the campaign trail with Cheney. That's very good that she didn't. Yes, accepting his support is bad because **** Cheney is a bad person.

[Motown Bombers]

4 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

One you missed was Rogan.  And not the decision not to go on, but whoever thought it would be good to lie about the reasons.  The campaign could have simply stated that scheduling didn't work. Texas wasn't a swing state hence Kamala didn't need to spend money visiting it.  Instead they wanted it entirely on their terms and when they couldn't get that, they blamed Rogan.  So they not only didn't court the base that Rogan's show has, they alienated it.

Kind of related, Arsenio Hall was just on Rogan and I listened to them talk about Clinton being on and how they offered an interview with Bush as well, but Bush declined as it was 'unbecoming of the presidency'.   You could argue Clinton won in large part to what his appearance on that show meant to his campaign.  In seeing Hillary in interviews now, I think she could have came across very well on Howard Stern, who knows what that could have done.  Just not sure if Kamala has the charisma to make it happen, but wish she would have tried.

 

When Clinton went on Arsenio Hall, going on late shows was something that was never done before. Clinton set the precedent. 
 

ironically, Harris skipped Rogan because of backlash from leftists. Another reason to ignore the far left. 

[Motown Bombers]

5 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Cheney endorsed Harris, as did his daughter. His daughter, while of course not directly responsible for his war crimes, campaigned with her. Harris embraced Cheney's endorsement and said she was honored to have it. By accepting the endorsement you are allowing it to be one more step in the process to rehabilitating the image of a war criminal. No, she didn't go out on the campaign trail with Cheney. That's very good that she didn't. Yes, accepting his support is bad because **** Cheney is a bad person.

I mean, Hasan Piker is a bad person too. It’s funny how leftists covet white working class but reject the people they vote for. 

[ewsieg]

Hungary just took a hard turn to avoid jumping off the cliff into illiberalism.  The left played a huge part by endorsing a conservative, a conservative that they don't agree with much on, except that illiberalism was not the direction they should be going.  

The left in Hungary in no way endorsed hard right policies, they simply didn't want Orban who was a much bigger threat.  They know can regroup and focus on improving Hungary now that it was saved.  

[Motown Bombers]

Meanwhile, the hard left who El-Sayed is campaigning with, said the would vote third party if the nominee is Newsom. El-Sayed also supported a campaign to vote against the opposition to illiberalism. 

[Motown Bombers]

Could’ve had Connor Lamb. 

 

[romad1]

16 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Could’ve had Connor Lamb. 

 

Dante’s Hell was hottest or worst est for traitors.

[gehringer_2]

58 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

One you missed was Rogan.  And not the decision not to go on, but whoever thought it would be good to lie about the reasons.  The campaign could have simply stated that scheduling didn't work. Texas wasn't a swing state hence Kamala didn't need to spend money visiting it.  Instead they wanted it entirely on their terms and when they couldn't get that, they blamed Rogan.  So they not only didn't court the base that Rogan's show has, they alienated it.

Kind of related, Arsenio Hall was just on Rogan and I listened to them talk about Clinton being on and how they offered an interview with Bush as well, but Bush declined as it was 'unbecoming of the presidency'.   You could argue Clinton won in large part to what his appearance on that show meant to his campaign.  In seeing Hillary in interviews now, I think she could have came across very well on Howard Stern, who knows what that could have done.  Just not sure if Kamala has the charisma to make it happen, but wish she would have tried.

 

That's funny because Arsenio was a gentleman's gentleman with his guests. Bush couldn't have topped the saxophone though. OTOH, what  he could have done was offered to take Arsenio sailing and put him to work on the sheets while he manned the wheel - that could been a great interview for him. No imagination. I'm sure his handlers would have shot it down as too upper class, but that's stupid, everyone knew he was upper class. These guys never learn that you come across the best being who you are. Certainly one fault Trump never suffers with.

[pfife]

Fettermans vote was meaningless, no practical effect.  Two way road.

However the 50+ Senate Republicans you and the X poaster conveniently neglected to mention though had a huge impact on the vote.

Republicans actually are responsible for Republican policies even when its contrary to your hatred of the left

Edited 2 hours ago by pfife

[gehringer_2]

52 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Hungary just took a hard turn to avoid jumping off the cliff into illiberalism.  The left played a huge part by endorsing a conservative, a conservative that they don't agree with much on, except that illiberalism was not the direction they should be going.  

The left in Hungary in no way endorsed hard right policies, they simply didn't want Orban who was a much bigger threat.  They know can regroup and focus on improving Hungary now that it was saved.  

exactly - there is a hierarchy of imperatives. Policy debate is fundamentally secondary when preservation of the system that supports policy debate and policy choice is what is being decided. When the election is really about "one man, one vote, one time" best not to be too concerned about the  tax rates.

[pfife]

But here, whether or not my vote is necessary to preserve the system is being decided by a message board posters election punditry that includes greatest hits like florida is competitive every year and trump learned election denialism from bernie

Hard pass

Edited 2 hours ago by pfife

[pfife]

Speaking of that awesome punditry, the total write in votes in Michigan were .03 percent.  1682 toal votes, and some of those surely werent uncommitted.   Not enough to make up the difference between trump and harris.   Not even close.   But yet lotsa bandwidth burned here on 'Uncommitted'. 

[romad1]

 

[pfife]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

Another reason to ignore the far left. 

You should take your own advice.   

[mtutiger]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the election decided mostly on people's views of the economy... And that neither the uncommitted movement nor campaigning with Liz Cheney made much of any difference on the outcome.

[Motown Bombers]

Here’s what I like about uncommitted. Their premise was listen to us or we won’t vote and you can’t win Michigan without us. Now that Democrats lost, particularly Michigan, they don’t want to take credit. They’re just smol beans and no one’s listening to them. 

[Motown Bombers]

9 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the election decided mostly on people's views of the economy... And that neither the uncommitted movement nor campaigning with Liz Cheney made much of any difference on the outcome.

A lot of the uncommitted voted Jill Stein or Trump himself. Some also sat home. Harris got 6 million fewer votes than Biden so those people went somewhere. 

[pfife]

LOL

Now we are literally redefining 'uncommitted' to mean 'committed to Stein'.   Even after that convenient slight of hand its still not enough to make up the vote difference between harris and trump.

[pfife]

23 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the election decided mostly on people's views of the economy... And that neither the uncommitted movement nor campaigning with Liz Cheney made much of any difference on the outcome.

No limb needed.   The write in vote was nowhere close to the vote difference between trump and harris, its stone cold numerical fact

I think it was perception of economy and also racism

Edited 59 minutes ago by pfife

[pfife]

15 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Here’s what I like about uncommitted. Their premise was listen to us or we won’t vote and you can’t win Michigan without us. Now that Democrats lost, particularly Michigan, they don’t want to take credit. They’re just smol beans and no one’s listening to them. 

The facts tell a different story.  1682 votes total.  The difference between trump and harris was way more than that.

But cool story bro

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Biden was the most progressive president since Johnson and had the best post COVID economy in the world. Why would she do anything different? Trump just bellowed tariffs which would increase prices and never received the same scrutiny. Harris at least had plans to build more housing, offer down payment assistance, and expand Medicaid. 

I'm not saying the criticism was valid. I'm just saying it's there and all those examples I offered up were considered flubs, and perhaps even cost her the election.

In the end, though, the bottom line is that a black woman was never going to be elected president in 2024. This country is just not past that way of thinking.